Reviewing the 2000 National League MVP Race
In 2000, Jeff Kent hit a robust .334/.424/.596 with 33 HRs and 125 RBIs on the way to winning his first -- and only -- Most Valuable Player Award. It's often been a topic of debate among fans that Barry Bonds -- and his .306/.440/.688 line with 49 HRs -- should have won the MVP award. In addition to Bonds, in 2000 the NL saw very strong years from Todd Helton, Andruw Jones, Sammy Sosa, Chipper Jones, Vladimir Guerrero, and Jeff Bagwell just to name a few.
Criteria for winning the MVP award can change between person to person. Some look for the best overall performance, regardless of team record. Others like to take into account how the team performed in relation to the individual season of the player. I tend to treat the MVP award based on best individual performance, so keep that in mind with today's post.
In 2000, which player was worth the most in the National League? That's the question that I'm hoping to answer in today's post using our handy player value graphs. I've taken the top five NL MVP finishers and ranked them by the total amount of runs they've created.
A few quick assumptions:
- For offense, I'm using FanGraphs wRAA with a simple multi-year park adjustment. wRAA isn't adjusted by park and we want to put everyone on a equal playing ground for their offensive contributions.
- Because I can't get my hands on UZR data for the year of 2000, I'm using Sean Smith's Total Zone ratings. TZ is probably the best way to measure defense for players pre-UZR. You can read more about the system, here.
- I'm using Tango's latest positional adjustments for each player.
- I've set the replacement-level to 22.5 runs per 700 PAs.
Let's get started. First, let's check out the value graph featuring the top five NL MVP finishers -- Todd Helton, Barry Bonds, Jeff Kent, Mike Piazza, and Jim Edmonds.
Thoughts:
- Pre-park adjustment, Todd Helton's bat played closer to +80 runs than the adjusted 60 runs it lands at after we take park into account. Still, even after the adjustment, he was the 2nd best hitter in the NL. Both Helton and Bonds were worth +60 runs by hitting alone. That's a good year at the plate.
- The other thing about Helton is that TZ says he was an absolute vacuum at first base in 2000. His score of +18 runs on defense pushes his overall value past MVP winner Jeff Kent and arguable could-be-winner Barry Bonds.
- The spread in runs between Todd Helton and 2nd place is only about a half-win, that's not a slam dunk case for an MVP award and it's pretty clear that most voters heavily penalized Helton for playing in Coors. They also probably didn't take into account his terrific defense. Helton finished 5th in the NL and probably should have been a top two -- if not #1 -- finisher.
- The Kent vs. Bonds debate for MVP could go either way. They both added about the same amount of value when everything is tallied up. Kent saw much more playing time in 2000 than Bonds did. His PT% of 99% -- based on 700 PAs -- beats Bonds' PT% of 87%. If you want to settle this debate, just flip a coin.
- If we were voting on production, Jim Edmonds and Mike Piazza would have finished 4th and 5th. You'll notice that I've got Piazza rated as an average defender behind the plate, which could be generous. At most, without the data, I'd call him a -5 run catcher, but I don't have the data -- TZ doesn't do catchers -- so we'll just call him average for now.
Here's a table ranking of other players in the NL for 2000 that had outstanding years:
| Name | Park-Batting | Fielding | Positional-Adj. | Replacement | Total Runs |
| Todd Helton | 61.50 | 18 | -12.45 | 22.40 | 89.46 |
| Barry Bonds | 66.23 | 4 | -6.50 | 19.51 | 83.24 |
| Jeff Kent | 56.82 | 1 | 2.48 | 22.34 | 82.64 |
| Andruw Jones | 30.99 | 22 | 2.60 | 23.43 | 79.02 |
| Brian Giles | 55.65 | -2 | 2.46 | 22.11 | 78.22 |
| Sammy Sosa | 54.59 | 7 | -7.55 | 22.66 | 76.70 |
| Garry Sheffield | 60.31 | -2 | -6.56 | 19.67 | 71.43 |
| Jim Edmonds | 44.59 | 2 | 2.30 | 20.67 | 69.55 |
| Richard Hidalgo | 45.20 | 9 | -6.90 | 20.70 | 68.00 |
| Mike Piazza | 40.35 | 0 | 9.73 | 17.52 | 67.60 |
| Chipper Jones | 39.90 | 2 | 2.45 | 22.05 | 66.40 |
| Jeff Bagwell | 54.03 | -1 | -12.84 | 23.11 | 63.30 |
| Valdimir Guerrero | 50.73 | -3 | -6.87 | 20.60 | 61.47 |
Thoughts:
- Andruw Jones played insane defense in CF in 2000. When you consider his peer group, a +22 run season in CF is just flat out ridiculous. Overall, he's the 4th most valuable player in the NL for 2000. He was worth just shy of +80 runs.
- Brian Giles must have pissed off someone, because by total runs he ranks as the 5th best player in the NL in 2000. Yet, he finished 19th in the voting. Only a couple of spots higher than Antonio Alfonseca. Ouch.
- Richard Hidalgo once had a very promising career. He was on par with Jim Edmonds -- in terms of value -- but he finished 20th in the NL by MVP voting. Hidalgo would tease Astros fans a couple of more times with his potential, but he would eventually wash out from the majors in 2005 at 30-years-old.
- I was a little surprised to see Sammy Sosa rate as a +7 defender in the OF. An underrated outfielder before he lost a step? UZR hated him most of the time between 2002-07, and TZ shows a similar decline during this time frame.
- Mike Piazza finished 3rd in the MVP race but several more players were more valuable. I'm guessing the voters weighed his position a little too heavily when marking their ballots.
- The win values for these players range from +6-8 wins, that seems about right for MVP candidates.
Closing Thoughts
You could make a pretty good argument for any of the top three for the 2000 NL MVP Award. Todd Helton, Barry Bonds, and Jeff Kent were all deserving. It's pretty amazing that the 2000 Giants team had two legitimate MVP candidates playing on the same roster. In the end, the voters just couldn't get past Todd Helton playing in Coors Field, he should have placed much better than 5th overall.
0 recs |
16 comments
|
Comments
A BBWAA look
I have been trying to understand the BBWAA and their voting. I am eventually going to pulish an article on Cy Young, ROY, MOY, HOF and MVP. I have gone ahead and ran the numbers on MVP and here is the numbers and they actaully predict the % of votes a player will get:
HR * 1.01%
H * 0.67%
AB * -0.22%
SB * 0.39%
RBI * 0.16%
W * -0.26%
SO * 0.09%
SV * 0.18%
1B = -32.00%
2B = -32.88%
3B = -38.16%
C = -28.56%
OF = -35.65%
SS = -30.91%
DH = -31.39%
P = -17.59%
Rockie = -19.13%
RBI leader = 14.18%
HR leader = 16.76%
AVG leader = 12.36%
Hits leader = 2.99%
PostSeason = 13.95%
Using the way the voters voted in the past, this is how the 2000 race was predicted to have gone:
Name Team Actual Rank Predicted Rank
Todd Helton COL 5 1
Sammy Sosa CHN 9 2
Mike Piazza NYN 3 3
Barry Bonds SFN 2 4
Jeff Kent SFN 1 5
Vladimir Guerrero MON 6 6
Jeff Bagwell HOU 7 7
Jim Edmonds SLN 4 8
Andruw Jones ATL 8 9
Chipper Jones ATL 11 10
Looks like more of a Rockie bias that year and as a whole pretty close, except for the Sammy Sosa being low.
by Jeff Zimmerman (TucsonRoyal) on Mar 2, 2009 12:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
That’s awesome stuff, Tuscon. It’s pretty amazing that being a Rockie knocks about 20% off your chances of winning a MVP award. I’m looking forward to your published article!
by xanthan on Mar 2, 2009 1:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This pretty much reinforces the look I've had at the season in past projects.
Helton might have the best actual numbers, but Bonds and Kent are so close, I’ll take the two who were a difference in the pennant race (though you could argue, having won the division by 11 games, the Giants could have lost one of them and still won).
I’d be fine with any of the three, and have argued Bonds in the past, but I tend to side 1. Kent, 2. Bonds, 3. Helton.
The AL race was pretty interesting that year, too.
by philkid3 on Mar 2, 2009 4:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
As for Andruw's defense...
I think even most Braves fans don’t realize how good he was out in center. Since UZR became readily available in 2002, he’s been at least 20 runs above average in all but two years and was +30 in 2005. +30!
I doubt he makes it, but I don’t see how anyone voting for the Hall can put Ozzie Smith in and keep Andruw out.
by BraveBronco0121 on Mar 2, 2009 4:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I like Andruw but I’m not sure how his early-30’s collapse is going to play with voters. I think right now, his chances are slim.
by xanthan on Mar 2, 2009 4:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Because Ozzie played a more valuable position with a longer career (thus far) and was actually an asset on offense for most of it.
If Jones had avoided this decline you might have a point, but they’re not even close to eachother at this point.
by philkid3 on Mar 2, 2009 7:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Save for a few seasons in the mid-late 80s...
Ozzie was a pretty piss poor hitter. OPS has it’s flaws and all, but a guy with a .666 career mark is far from an asset. Your point about position is certainly one to consider, though.
My thinking with Andruw goes something like this -
1. We know that from 02-07 he was the best defensive player in baseball, and to be honest it isn’t even close. Over that stretch, he was worth 23 runs above average per year.
2. Over that same stretch, his offense was good enough to give him an average WAR was 6.42.
3. Despite the lack of longevity we’ve seen, his peak is excellent. Over the stretch we’re looking at, 02-07, he was one of the most productive players in the game.
All in all, if they want to let Ozzie in for below average hitting and excellent defense over a long career, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to let Andruw in for a peak of excellent defense and good hitting. But, ultimitely, it’s the writers, so he’s not in. But if I had dictatorial control, he’s in.
by BraveBronco0121 on Mar 2, 2009 8:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
Jones has had some of the better peak seasons of anyone in the game. Peak years should be counted as much as longevity and career numbers. However, if he doesn’t turn it around with Texas, than I can’t see him getting voted in.
vivaelbeñsheets
by vivaelpujols on Mar 2, 2009 9:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ozzie Smith's career EqA: .262
I think you’re 1) underrating his plate performance relative to his era and 2) overlooking his crazy good base running, that makes up for a bit of his power. That’s not “piss poor” that’s average. And average at shortstop is a plus. And he was better at his peak, which is what’s really important. I really think you’re greatly undervaluing Ozzie’s offensive contributions.
Andruw Jones, in a shorter career, has put up an EqA only 17 points better. At a less valuable position. If he did that over a career as long as Smith’s, I likely have him in the Hall of Fame. With his apparent implosion, there is absolutely no excuse for comparing him to Ozzie Smith. You cannot ignore position value, era context or longevity.
Hell, Jones’s peak isn’t really that far ahead of Smith’s offensively that I see, but Smith had a decline phase and a weaker start.
(This deserved a post of its own.)
by philkid3 on Mar 3, 2009 1:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As far as poitns 1-3, I don't think Jones is too far from the Hall of Fame.
It’s just that comparing him to Ozzie Smith is ridiculous.
You keep saying Ozzie Smith had below average hitting, but he made up with it to be average offensively and that was at SHORTSTOP.
by philkid3 on Mar 3, 2009 1:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Let me qualify: comparing Ozzie's best to Jones's best isn't that bad.
It’s acting like Smith was a liablity on offense and comparing their careers that is.
by philkid3 on Mar 3, 2009 2:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, didn't mean to get under your skin that badly...
Ozzie’s great and all, but…
On his offense – he was not, over the whole of his career, an average hitter. His career wOBA is .311, his career RAA is -73.6. Ozzie did some things right with the bat, namely taking walks and stealing bases, but it simply cannot make up for the lack of power and average. Now, at his peak, he’s slightly above average and had one really great year in 1987, but for most of his time in the majors Ozzie was indeed a liability on offense. But hey, that’s not a big deal when you play SS and catch everything that comes your way!
As to peak values, I think they are likely similar, with the positional adjustment making up some of the difference in offensive production.
by BraveBronco0121 on Mar 3, 2009 8:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
EqA isn't as good as wOBA
And that says that he was well below average for his career.
vivaelbeñsheets
by vivaelpujols on Mar 3, 2009 11:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
wOBA can be tough to compare to average by eye
I’m not saying this is the case here, but since wOBA is scaled each year to the league OBA, you’ll see fluctuations in wOBA based purely on the run environment that you wouldn’t see in EQA.
An average batter in 1968 is going to have a much lower wOBA than the average batter in 1998.
by Dan Turkenkopf on Mar 4, 2009 8:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How about pitchers?
In 2000 Randy Johnson had a 2.56 FIP in 248.1 innings. I’m not to handy with pitcher RAR, but I would hazard a guess that his 2000 season would be around 80 RAR.
vivaelbeñsheets
by vivaelpujols on Mar 2, 2009 9:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

















BtB on Facebook














